All that I have learned about "The Creator" is this...

[Adonai One]

If you were to fully realize yourself as "The Creator" at this moment, besides for it being a especially meaningful moment, everything would remain the same. Your life would have the same struggles, the same peaks and the same lows. Just as you add 0 to anything, it remains exactly the same.

If you add "God" or "The Creator" to anything, it remains exactly the same because that source is already here and has already reached its inevitable conclusion indefinitely.

There was never a journey. There was never a purpose. It is all just a creation and you too are acting as a creator through every moment you live, through every move you make and every move you don't make.

It begins with The Choice and it ends with The Choice. It's just choices, just strokes on paper. We are our choices. Our choices end up being as deliberate and precise as they were from our primal inception as God himself.

All things are perfection for we chose this. All of this. That is true enlightenment.

[volicon]

Reading those words, I was reminded of a great excerpt from Neale Donald Walsch's "Home with God" that I'd like to share here:

(Bold texts are God's, and normal texts are Neale's)

What is the message of the Holocaust? What is the message of 9/11? What is the message of the tsunami and the crib death and the AIDS patient and the loving grandparent who slips away in the middle of the night?
Indeed, what is the message and the purpose of all death and of all of life?

Will you tell us? Can you tell us here?

The message is what you announce it to be. The purpose is what you demonstrate it to be. You do that announcing and the demonstrating through the living of your life.
You are both the message and the messenger. You are both the creator and the created. You are in the process of delivering it IS the process of producing it. They are one and the same.
Think on this. Think on this deeply.
This much I can say to you: Life Itself is a glory and a wonder far beyond anything you have previously imagined--and you, yourself, are a glory and a wonder far beyond anything you have previously experienced.
This life, which you live--this life, which you are--is everlasting and eternal. It never ends, ever. All souls are interacting and co-creating in every moment. All souls. There is an interweaving that produces the breathtaking tapestry of life. Each thread takes its path, but to assume that each thread is therefore ‘on its own’ would be to vastly misunderstand how the Larger Picture is created.

My God…

Your God, indeed.

So life is not a singular experience.

Actually, it IS.
It is the experience of the Singularity, knowing Itself as Itself through the experience of its individuations. There is but a Single Agenda, and it is served through the distinctly different but remarkably co-joined experiences of every one of us.
That Single Agenda is for Divinity to be expressed and experienced in all its splendor, and to re-create and define itself anew in every single golden moment of Now. HOW it expresses itself, HOW it experiences itself, HOW it defines itself, is up to you. That is the decision you are making every day. That is the choice you are demonstrating every moment. You are doing so individually and collectively. Every act is an act of self-definition.
Of this truth, and many others, you will be reminded when you merge with the Core of Your Being. It is here that you will be rejuvenated, reunited, and reintegrated, should you have forgotten the original agenda, should you have lost your memory and your sense of Who You Really Are. And if you have not, but rather, have a full awareness of all of this and a full experience of it, it is at the core of your Being where you will be replenished.
The great misunderstanding of all those who have forgotten the Ultimate Truth, the great illusion of all those who live in temporary amnesia, is that there is somewhere they have to ‘go,’ somewhere they have to journey, in order to ‘get to heaven,’ or ‘unite with God,’ and experience eternal bliss.
There is nowhere you have to go, nothing you have to do, and nothing you have to be except exactly what you are being right now, in order to experience the bliss of the Divine.
You ARE the bliss of the Divine, and you simply do not know it.

Then why bother taking these endless trips through the applorange [volicon here. applorange is a metaphor Neale created for the physical-metaphysical reality continuum]? Why am I continuously journeying through the Space/Time Continuum? Why have I undertaken this endless search for God?

Your journey is not an endless SEARCH for God, it is an endless EXPERIENCE of God.
Understood in this way, the reason for the continuous journey becomes apparent. The journey is a process. It is the way that you know God--indeed, that you know yourself AS that which is Divine. This journey is therefore your greatest joy.

Okay, so I am taking these ‘trips’ through time and space in order to experience God. But when do I actually meet God? Earlier you said that God will be the first experience I will have after my death.

If you believe that it will be, then it will be. But you do not have to wait until then. In fact, you have been meeting God all along. That is what I have been telling you.
Here is the central error of most human theology: You think that one day you are going to meet God. You imagine that you are one day going to get back Home. You are not going to get back Home.
You never left Home.

[vervex]

Beautifully said, Adonai. Every single breath we take is divine, and so is every gesture, every living being, every molecule. God is now, here, and in everything, forever.

This concept actually sank in within me fully last week, and now I sometimes have to shake myself up to remind myself why I should not just sit below a tree and contemplate creation, letting it run its course. I chose to come here for a reason, to help, and I'll dutifully keep up with this promise.

[Unbound]

Do you mean to tell me adding a 0 to a 1 will not make a 10, but stay as the same 1?

While I agree with the basis of this philosophy, essentially, there is, in it, what appears to be resistence to the responsibility of choice. If everything begins and ends with the Choice, how do the choices of numerous individuals interact together? If there is no purpose, then what is the point of having a choice if your choices have no impact?

[Hototo]

Perhaps this lack of desire to make a choice has most to do with speed blindness.

YEs, in the grand cosmic sense of the violet ray or some such, no choice has an impact.

On our level it has. Make the choice to hit your toe in anger at a door or make a choice not to hit your toe in anger at the door, matters little to the ruler of Planet Omicron Persei 8 by the name of Lurr. But will matter greatly to your toe, and to the people who care about your toe.

[Unbound]

"If you add "God" or "The Creator" to anything, it remains exactly the same because that source is already here and has already reached its inevitable conclusion indefinitely."

This is the only part that I do not quite agree with as I understand consciousness and "God" as fundamentally being a process. So, as I understand the process is continuously going on, and in that I thus understand that "God" has a dynamic aspect that IS changing and evolving and IS affected by every single choice made.

While I do believe that on some level "everything is complete" and every possibility has been actualized, I do believe the process of the Creator doing this is also continuously ongoing.

Personally, I view each choice as meaningful to the whole.

To me, there is a difference between merely "placing strokes on paper" and creating a developed piece of art.

[Aureus]

[Adonai One]

Do you mean to tell me adding a 0 to a 1 will not make a 10, but stay as the same 1?

What happens in standard mathematics?

While I agree with the basis of this philosophy, essentially, there is, in it, what appears to be resistence to the responsibility of choice. If everything begins and ends with the Choice, how do the choices of numerous individuals interact together? If there is no purpose, then what is the point of having a choice if your choices have no impact?

What I mean to say is that the purpose is inherent, the responsibility is inherent. I do not believe responsibility has to be a forceful obligation, a binding contract. People work together because they Love and inherently feel invested in their cause. I don't see self-sacrifice.

I believe purpose is simply another creation, another choice. The impact of our choices are just as illusionary and that does not have to be a distasteful thing.

I mean, I'll ask you this: What impact do you seek beyond a creation that came out of a creation, that came out of a creation, addendum...?

What I promote is simply self-responsibility, not responsibility from a higher cause or something distant from the self. I argue for a microcosmic self directing the self for the self and inevitably others. I argue for the self to be The Creator.

People surrender themselves to the nearest cause but this is not the only way to be responsible. Owning what you do because want to do it is true responsibility. Responsibility does not come from authority or society, well it can; but in the end, it is created by the self by its choice.

To subscribe and stand under another cause that you do not truly believe in is simply absorption, rejection of the current microcosmic self.

Anyways, responsibility is just the will of creation. Nothing more.

---

"If you add "God" or "The Creator" to anything, it remains exactly the same because that source is already here and has already reached its inevitable conclusion indefinitely."

This is the only part that I do not quite agree with as I understand consciousness and "God" as fundamentally being a process. So, as I understand the process is continuously going on, and in that I thus understand that "God" has a dynamic aspect that IS changing and evolving and IS affected by every single choice made.

I don't think we necessarily disagree.

But that dynamic quality is still quantified into a choice, a creation and will remain to be. If not, may my mind be blown in the eons to come. "God" still remains to be a Choice in a series of Choices and an omnipresense that includes all Choice indiscriminately.

While I do believe that on some level "everything is complete" and every possibility has been actualized, I do believe the process of the Creator doing this is also continuously ongoing.

Personally, I view each choice as meaningful to the whole.

And I do as well. When did I not imply this is not the case?

To me, there is a difference between merely "placing strokes on paper" and creating a developed piece of art.

Art is a matter of perception, completely subjective. However when a civilization develops art to a cultural peak, even the blank canvas is explored as art.

As we may agree, there is no bias in the end when things are judged as beautiful or not; even the doodle is considered a master piece.

[Unbound]

In standard mathematics no addition actually takes place because you cannot logically have "a zero", because that is applying a quantity, "a" denoting "singular", of zero, which is already self defeating. What is the difference between a zero on its own, and a zero after a one? What does the zero do to the one to make it a ten?

My point is that "zero", "one" and all the numbers are part of a symbol system which is symbolic of real relationships. What is the analog of the symbol "zero"?

Also, I am confused, you are saying God is a choice? I am not sure what you mean by that...

What I am trying to express is like water. If you move any single atom in a fluid, every single other atom has to move as a result of it.

If you make a choice, every single other part of the universe and thus choice is impacted by that choice. You say the impact is illusory, but if all illusion is also real, then the impact is also real.

It seems to me you are approaching the philosophy of solipsism?

---

I agree that there is no "forceful" obligation to be responsible for one's power, but that the responsibility remains all the same.

Also, a creation from a creation from a creation... well, I am such a creation am I not? I will say that yes, it is meaningful to me what creation comes from the creation that I am, and I think that is the nature of responsibility. What impact could I seek to have? To create that which creates, rather than that which destroys creations.

If I continuously "choose not to choose" then that is no less a choice.

Create whatever you want, choose to create whatever you want, just know that you must take responsibility for every bit eventually.

---

Also, you say that the process of God is quantified in to "a choice", well which choice? Whos choice? Just one choice? Does this mean that God is also the "chooser"?

---

I would also ask you, what is the point in there being a macrocosmic self if all we are to do is enmesh ourselves in our microcosmic selves?

[Adonai One]

In standard mathematics no addition actually takes place because you cannot logically have "a zero", because that is applying a quantity, "a" denoting "singular", of zero, which is already self defeating. What is the difference between a zero on its own, and a zero after a one? What does the zero do to the one to make it a ten?

In my theory, zero is everything undefined. Just as infinity is undefined.

My point is that "zero", "one" and all the numbers are part of a symbol system which is symbolic of real relationships. What is the analog of the symbol "zero"?

Infinity. Non-finity.

Also, I am confused, you are saying God is a choice? I am not sure what you mean by that...

Is it not the culmination of all choices made and the foundational choices by which all choice is made?

What I am trying to express is like water. If you move any single atom in a fluid, every single other atom has to move as a result of it.

If you make a choice, every single other part of the universe and thus choice is impacted by that choice. You say the impact is illusory, but if all illusion is also real, then the impact is also real.

It seems to me you are approaching the philosophy of solipsism?

Indeed but the severity of that impact, the relevance of that impact is just a part of that Choice. It has the same analogous implications of a paint splattering on canvas. The responsibility only becomes a burden to the most precise painter which many strive to be.

Solipsism is logically consistent if one believes that every individuated spec of this reality contains all.

I agree that there is no "forceful" obligation to be responsible for one's power, but that the responsibility remains all the same.

Also, a creation from a creation from a creation... well, I am such a creation am I not? I will say that yes, it is meaningful to me what creation comes from the creation that I am, and I think that is the nature of responsibility.

Create whatever you want, choose to create whatever you want, just know that you must take responsibility for every bit eventually.

Responsibility seems to be another name for Love? Possibly a result of Love + Choice. A trinity. Hmmm.

I would also ask you, what is the point in there being a macrocosmic self if all we are to do is enmesh ourselves in our microcosmic selves?

Would that not be like asking why a house sits on the ground and obeys the laws of physics when it's just a house?

[Unbound]

What does it mean for something to be "undefined"? Haven't you just defined them by their apparent lack of definition?

Also, as I understand it, "choice" as we know it is only one creative, universal scheme from which experience stems. God is much more than just the sum total of all choices, because there is still the need for the mind and consciousness to conceive of choice. Choice is just one subset of experience, imo.

Interesting analogy, but what if you make a choice that splatters paint on the canvas of someone else who has been working meticulously on their piece?

Solipsism is fundamentally flawed, imo, in that it fails to recognize the interactions between many minds. Sure, you could simply not care, throw your paint where you will and go on smiling, if that is how you wish to conduct yourself.

Will they let anyone who can just throw paint on a canvas go on to the more advanced classes? Usually not.

So long as you are only willing to take the responsibility for splatters of paint, then you are free to do so. Only when you are willing to take on the responsibility for more disciplined work will you enjoy the fruits of such an endeavour.

---

Also, I think responsibility can be connected to love, but isn't really synonymous. People can do some crazy things under the influence of love, which is why, imo, wisdom is also seen to be of value. Wisdom is what makes one aware of responsibility.

---

Also, to your last line I offer the Einsetin quote: "Judge the intelligence of a fish by its ability to climb a tree and it will go on believing it is stupid."

---

"Just a house" is just one particular perception of what the house truly is, no?

[Adonai One]

What does it mean for something to be "undefined"? Haven't you just defined them by their apparent lack of definition?

The definition of undefined is applied to something with a definition that cannot be currently quantified.

Also, as I understand it, "choice" as we know it is only one creative, universal scheme from which experience stems. God is much more than just the sum total of all choices, because there is still the need for the mind and consciousness to conceive of choice. Choice is just one subset of experience, imo.

I am open to agreeing. Although it seems we hit an upper limit of what can be understood within this nexus.

Interesting analogy, but what if you make a choice that splatters paint on the canvas of someone else who has been working meticulously on their piece?

Even that disagreement is part of the universal canvas.The value placed on that conflict is still subjective as heartless as that may sound. The responsibility regarding that conflict varies infinitely. If somebody's goal was only conflict, this disagreement would be a fulfillment of that responsibilty.

Are you attempting to appeal to emotion? Heh.

Solipsism is fundamentally flawed, imo, in that it fails to recognize the interactions between many minds. Sure, you could simply not care, throw your paint where you will and go on smiling, if that is how you wish to conduct yourself.

I disagree on your definition of solipsism, for the solipsist considers the results of these interactions as acting within his own mind thus still existing.

And you imply that one without a concrete philosophy has no morality. This is the same argument applied to atheists in which fundies argue they could become potentially dangerous killers. Which is obviously not the case. One can simply turn morality into a set of preferences that exist unto themselves. Why would responsibility need to extend beyond this?

Will they let anyone who can just throw paint on a canvas go on to the more advanced classes? Usually not.

I fail to see the reasoning here. Heh.

So long as you are only willing to take the responsibility for splatters of paint, then you are free to do so. Only when you are willing to take on the responsibility for more disciplined work will you enjoy the fruits of such an endeavour.

You seem to think that I neglect the universal implications of my own work. I find that perspective interesting. And I would be grateful for an elaboration. Haha. This has been a great pleasure.

Also, I think responsibility can be connected to love, but isn't really synonymous. People can do some crazy things under the influence of love, which is why, imo, wisdom is also seen to be of value. Wisdom is what makes one aware of responsibility.

What is the universal responsibility to you? What does all owe itself?

"Just a house" is just one particular perception of what the house truly is, no?

Are all perceptions equally meaningful and valuable within a macrocosmic context?

Anyways, it seems I fail to quantify our disagreement. What is your objective?

I value your time and your words. I can only hope you don't think I am squandering them through my confusion. Haha.

[Unbound]

I would add that I very much agree with self-responsibility and I don't feel anyone should have to have enforcement towards being one way or another. However, to me it is a denial of my total self to see myself as only a microcosmic self. I cannot deny the macrocosmic self I have become aware of, and as I understand microcosm/macrocosm my macrocosmic self is also a microcosmic self to an even greater macrocosmic self.

So, even viewing myself as the Creator, I must also view everyone else as equally the Creator, however, in opening myself to infinity and all possibilities, I realize that how the Creator perceives itself from the perspective which is tied to my physical body is very different from the perspective of itself it has say, from your body, or the body of any other member of this forum, or a star/the sun, or a cosmic light being in the next octave, or a creator essence from beyond the octave system itself.

Yes, we are all the Creator, but the Creator is absolutely unique in every part and so no part is any less or more important, but each is still absolutely necessary and eternally destined to be part of existence whenever such is its time.

Of course, this is all dealing with time-coded universes, nevermind the myraids of other universal experiments which have nothing to do with either time or space.

[Adonai One]

I would add that I very much agree with self-responsibility and I don't feel anyone should have to have enforcement towards being one way or another. However, to me it is a denial of my total self to see myself as only a microcosmic self. I cannot deny the macrocosmic self I have become aware of, and as I understand microcosm/macrocosm my macrocosmic self is also a microcosmic self to an even greater macrocosmic self.

So, even viewing myself as the Creator, I must also view everyone else as equally the Creator, however, in opening myself to infinity and all possibilities, I realize that how the Creator perceives itself from the perspective which is tied to my physical body is very different from the perspective of itself it has say, from your body, or the body of any other member of this forum, or a star/the sun, or a cosmic light being in the next octave, or a creator essence from beyond the octave system itself.

Yes, we are all the Creator, but the Creator is absolutely unique in every part and so no part is any less or more important, but each is still absolutely necessary and eternally destined to be part of existence whenever such is its time.

Of course, this is all dealing with time-coded universes, nevermind the myraids of other universal experiments which have nothing to do with either time or space.

My friend, when did I ever deny any of this? Haha.

[Unbound]

Hmm, also I would say that emotion and all other subjective experiences are no less valid nor any less impactful than any objective perception. If one wants to be the Creator, they have to take responsibility for every single part of creation.

Everything and everyone is the Creator, so there is movement between parts of the Creator which naturally organizes itself in to systems of patterns and motions. This is why densities exist as perceptions at all.

Yes, everything is here and everything is everywhere, but the fact remains that everything is what it is until it is changed by the universal mind, the very electricity of its thought being its will.

We are the universal mind in thought and our minds are fractals of the universal mind. We are equal to the universal mind, yes, but equality on an energetic level is different from "sameness".

If we have a set of 100, and we give each of its parts a binary function, such as aware/not aware, and say we can apply a change in that function in ANY of the parts of the set of 100.

We know that the total "potential" of the system is 100, the most number of possibilities for awareness. So, lets say a couple of the set have become aware. Generally we might say the first 3 of the set of 100 have become "kinetic", or active, and now have a set of 100 differentiated by two states, of which 3 are one, and 97 are the other.

We have now just created two new sets, that being 3, and 97, which can be subset once again or more even. We do this for every single combination possible of active and inactive states in the total set of 100 which now logically has hundreds of sets within it.

If we then consider that 100 is also a subset of a greater set, like 1000, then we can begin to see the pattern of microcosm and macrocosm.

Lets say now that each new cycle is defined by the numbers themselves, 1 through 9. Each threshold is defined by a rebirth but with a layer of "completion" as its foundation. Thus the 1 becomes the 10, the 2 the 20 and the 3 the 30. Cycles are also microcosmic and macrocosmic. 1 to 9 is one cycle. 10 to 90, by tens, is the next. Then 100 to 900 by hundreds and so on. One could also apply this to octaves, but I am using more of a tetractys concept.

So, where am I going with all this?

Lets define our set as 100 people, and we'll say they are differentiated by awareness in terms of unity. Thus continuing the aware/not aware model.

Now, suppose that in order for the entire 100 people to realize themselves as part of the next greater set, there needs to be a certain percentage of the individuals who have to be aware, to create "momentum" towards the next set. In order for total realization of the inclusion of the next set, absolutely all 100 must be aware, because only realized as a unified 100 will they realize their place in relation to the 1000. I do not mean this as heirarchical, but as ratios.

Do you see then the difficulty of the realization of ALL experience? Do you realize that there is so much yet to occur and yet to be done?

Yes, everything is, has been, and will be, but what will YOU do? I ask this question to everyone.

---

My friend, when did I ever deny any of this? Haha.

At which point did you establish I was opposed to you? I am philosophisizing.